Even if not's, they'll say it is. Shitty old tactic.
C'mon, how hard to you think it is to find a vehicle breaking the law? Many motor officers claim they can write a citation for any vehicle--including one right off the assembly line. Do this; the next time you are driving, pick out a vehicle in front of you and see how long before you see a violation of the law. It does not have to be a big violation or a certain violation, just one you think is illegal. It usually doesn't take long. And, I assume you don't use the vehicle code as your bathroom book. New cops often do. Just because they chose a different path from you does not make them stupid.
Even if you don't, doesn't really matter. If a cop's got a hard on to fuck w/ you, he or she will. Your rights go out the fuckin' window. In some states, if they run a dog around your vehicle & the dog alerts on a area of the vehicle, they can search. What's horrible about that is a lot of dogs are trained to alert when their handler taps on something. Anything. "Here boy, good boy. You smell anything" ? Tap tap on the wheel well. "Ruff ruff ruff ruff". Fucking bullshit.
The dogs are NOT trained in the way you say. They are rewarded when the find the contraband/person and (usually) sit. They do not get rewarded for sitting when the officer taps. It is basic behavior modification and is trained and tested regularly with other dog/team pairs. While I know many say a dog alert is often faked in order to catch ne're-do-wells, I find it unlikely.
As to if an officer can fuck with you--sure. That is why we should be careful with our rights. Since so many convictions are based solely on the testimony (Or,
testilying according to Dershowitz.) of the officer, a bad cop can certainly be a problem. We need to fire officers sooner when they intentionally violate the rights of citizens. There are phone apps like
https://www.mobilejusticeca.org/ that can help protect those rights and punish rogue cops by streaming any encounter and saving the recording away from the activity. Large scale recording of police activity is an incredible resource to shift power to the process over power to a bully cop or a malcontent suspect.
Don't forget, cops have a real job to do. I don't think anyone here would like how life were to change without the police. There are people out there who will hit you over the head with a rock because they want your shoes. Sometimes they drive cars.
A country hooked on pharmaceuticals, but still has crazy harsh penalties in areas for where it's STILL not legal, for something the brain has specific receptors for. WTF. Maybe one day, we as a country can overcome this 3rd grade mentality we have about marijuana & the world around us in which we live. Not holdin' my breath though.
While I agree the fear of cannabis is overblown, there are risks to societal acceptance of use. We have opiate receptors too. Few are advocating full opiate legalization and our current problem with prescribed pharmaceuticals is not really an argument FOR relaxing restrictions for other drugs.
But don't they need "reasonable suspicion" to even call in a dog?
Once you get to specific questions, the jurisdiction is more important. Even if in the U.S., state law can be more restrictive than federal protections. Also, there are always exceptions. There used to be a general theory that tied together 4th amendment issues, today they call it the "mosaic theory". (aka make it up as they go along.) But, I believe there are two errors in the statement. First, for a search, an officer generally needs "probable cause" and not the lesser requirement of "reasonable suspicion". You may search all you want and you will not find an easy way to describe the difference between the two. But, RS is a lesser standard than PC. Second, generally, a dog sniff is not a "search". Dogs can sniff when they are in a place they are legally allowed to be. (Again, Jardines held a dog sniff when it was in the curtilage of a residence was problematical.) The police can call for and have a dog walk around your vehicle without any need for PC, RS or even a hunch.
The issue will usually be as to if the suspect has to stay there while the dog is walking around. That is the usual 4th amendment violation with a dog. The contacting officer calls the dog. He can only detain the suspect for as long as it takes to reasonably investigate articulable facts that lead him to believe there is some crime that is or had occurred and to do the normal functions based on the facts. Say an officer stopped you for the license plate light. He calls a drug dog and it is on its way. The officer must continue as he would normally progress until a normal completion of the task. (That is, take information, run it for warrants and write the citation.) At the completion, the suspect is free to leave. If the dog is not there, too bad. (Generally, there are outlier cases.) The way police overcome this problem is to hand back the citation and information to complete the task and then ask another question. If you stay to answer, courts find the contact has changed from a detention to a consensual encounter. Why consent to waiting around for when the dog gets there?
This leads us to OUR strategy to counter. When you get your stuff back and another question is asked, we say something like, "I really need to get somewhere, am I free to leave?" Do what the nice young man/woman with a gun says. But, beware the false "answer". The law lens the court will look at the facts at someday is if a reasonable person under like circumstances would feel free to leave. Amorphous answers tend to favor the police by that standard. If you don't get a straight answer, at some point you have to make a call as to if you will leave or not. Good times.
Regarding consenting to a search---don't.
If you do not consent to a search, the officer must either release you or detain you and attempt to get a warrant. The fact that you refuse to consent does not give the officer grounds to obtain a warrant or further detain you.
I agree with not consenting with a request to search. Refusal does NOT result in a requirement to release or detain and get a warrant. If one is in an automobile, if they could get a warrant, they can search without one. Probable cause is all that is required.
An officer can obtain a search warrant only from a judge or magistrate and only upon a showing of "probable cause." Probable cause requires an officer to articulate information that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been or is being committed and that evidence of that involvement can be found within the object of the search.
Yes. As to the "object of the search", it would depend on the facts. Most warrants include "indicia" of ownership (Or, whatever) not only because it helps prove the crime, but also because indicia can be really small and fit in most any container. With drugs, it is not as important as drugs can fit in very small spaces too. But, warrants are not really a big factor in small-scale possession cases. Even though much of an affidavit (Filing with a judge to swear to facts to get a warrant.) is cut and paste, they still take effort. Absent a belief there is some real weight, ain't nobody got time for that.
, what about a bus or rail?